Theos-Talk Archives (September 2006 Message tt00524)

Richard,

Hope you'll forgive me for passing this on to Mind and Brain -- since my 
higher Self (my only God and Master) has told me that these ideas should be widely 
distributed -- and even further clarified...   How else can we give other 
scientists and skeptics of all stripes an opportunity to falsify or contradict 
them?   :-)

I still think we are at odds about what I mean by a zero-point "singularity" 
(called a "Laya point" in theosophy).   As I see it, while the absolute 
zero-point field centers (where their rays of positive and negative force cross) on 
any plane of decent from Spirit to Matter -- are of a relative zero diameter 
metrically (with reference to the energy-frequency wave lengths on each level) 
-- the spinergy or angular momentum surrounding such a laya point are each at 
a different set or relative part of the infinite set of infinities -- as shown 
to be possible in Cantor's Aleph mathematics (Infinite set theory).   

Thus, each plane of fractal field involution has it's own fundamental 
"singularity" or laya Point of origin -- whose spinergy, and its radiated coenergetic 
fields, while of a different spectral order of an infinite set of 
frequencies, can carry on their surfaces the same infinite set of encoded structural and 
experiential information that is identical to every other Laya point on any 
other level.   It follows that the Big Bang   "singularity" out of which *this 
universe* radiated is of infinite *informational* potential that is equivalent 
to that of any other zero-point spinergy (of an infinity of such points) on 
any other infinite level of fractal involution within it.   

Naturally, since science doesn't yet understand abstract motion or spinergy, 
and can't make the leap from matter to it -- it cannot comprehend the 
necessity of the zero-point discontinuity or voidness at its center that is the Spirit 
or pure consciousness of Absolute space, which has no objective or 
conditioned attributes -- but only the twin aspects of awareness and will.   This, I see 
as the "higher Self," the pure witness or "I AM I" consciousness within all 
of us.

I also see this as being consistent with the theosophical precept that 
fundamental or Absolute space is infinitely divisible and infinitely expandable.   
And, also, justifies the concept that the absolute is relative and the relative 
is absolute -- which can also be applied to the time constant as well as the 
velocity of light on each plane of fractal descent. 

As I see it, the reason GR theory fails at the zero-point-instant 
singularity, is that it can only deal with physical geometry's along with its vectors, 
mass-energies, etc., and gets twisted in the spinergy between the photon on this 
plane and the analogous photon on the astral plane -- where the speed of 
light may be at the order of magnitude of the tachyon.:-)   Seems that this is the 
same problem QM has when it tries to deal with ZPE or the 'quantum foam' in 
the sub quantum Planck space.   

As for "supernatural," I guess we both know what we each mean, since it's 
just a matter of semantics... However, I can't get it out of my head that the pre 
cosmic (i.e., pre big Bang) singularity of this universe is "natural" -- as 
is every fractal field iteration between it and this physically objective 
metric space-time continuum, as well as its "dark matter" and "dark energy".   
Thus, "supernatural" to me has a connotation that I associate with Creationism, 
miracles, vicarious atonement, resurrection, and personal God worship. 

Leon

In a message dated 9/28/06 10:52:30 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:


> Leon,
>  You have a different definition of supernatural than I. My definition is 
> that the supernatural is everything beyond ordinary physical existence. For ex
> ample, my definition includes dark matter and dark energy in the supernatural, 
> and all higher planes of existence as in theosophy.
>   
>  Regarding singularities: mathematics can handle infinities due to 
> singularities easily. It's just that I do not think, along with all other physicists, 
> that singularities exist in nature including the big bang. When theories like 
> GR predict singularities, the theories are no longer valid at and around the 
> singular/infinity point. What you are proposing is not acceptable physics. 
> However, there is a point at the center of anything circular. But nothing 
> physical is infinite at that point. Perhaps your use of the word singularity, 
> which implies an infinity, does not actually mean infinite to you. If so, then 
> you should stop using that word as you are just being confusing.
>  Otherwise, we seem to be in complete agreement.
>   
>  Richard 
>   
>   
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> To: yanniru@netscape.net
> Sent: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 6:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: On Human Brain Size and the Genome
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Actually, we are not so far apart in our thinking, although there are 
> certain aspects of my theory that I avoid talking about on the scientific forums.  
> And that is, the possible guidance of phenomenal occurrences by beings on a 
> higher plane of consciousness. 
> 
> I believe -- and my theory doesn't preclude the possibility -- that higher 
> order conscious entities on the spiritual planes (such as the Dhyan Chohans, 
> spoken of by Blavatsky) could consciously focus the will and correlate the 
> forces on the astral and spiritual planes in such a manner as to coenergetically 
> influence formative organic, if not inorganic, changes on the material 
> plane.  
> 
> However, I don't see such action as being supernatural or depending on any 
> element of chance.  Much of what appears as such, is the nature of complexity 
> or chaos that contains within itself the seeds of order -- that may require 
> only a consciously determined minor force on a higher plane of fractal 
> involution to effect radical changes on a lower and more orderly plane.  Something 
> like changing the course of a plane or ship by small adjustments of the trim 
> tabs of rudder or wing surfaces.  Sometimes these changes could be so drastic 
> as to appear as if produced by some sort of supernatural magic.   Or, 
> alternatively, as science refers to evolution -- due to a single (maybe or maybe 
> not) chance mutation of a gene that alters the evolution of an entire species.  
> 
> Well, why couldn't that mutational change be transferred from that one gene, 
> through coenergetic fields that reach out and influence changes in a 
> comparable gene in other individuals of that species who are in relatively close 
> contact with each other.  (Possibly on the highest spiritual fields, if not on 
> the mental and astral.)  Seems there's no reason why those fields couldn't be 
> guided or tweaked by willful intent directed from a higher plane.  This, of 
> course, appears entirely consistent with my theory of transfer of holographic 
> image information from one coenergetic field to another by ED inductive 
> resonance processes.  And, could possibly be the mechanism behind the operation of 
> Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields.
> 
> Wouldn't it be also possible that genes may be altered across any isolated 
> segment of a species through strong enough needs that are necessary for 
> survival and induce or awaken images on the higher planes that are attracted to and 
> influenced by archetypal memories already there in magnetic encoding?   This 
> could very well occur with or without the added influence of higher evolved 
> intelligent beings on higher planes. (Although, I too am inclined to believe 
> that such beings can and possibly do influence evolution in one way or 
> another.)  However, I'd rather it could all be ascribed to the ED affinities 
> between higher and lower images that are already in ideal existence on the highest 
> planes, and may not need any willful nudge by a higher intelligence to enable 
> them to influence changes on the lower planes for that change to occur -- 
> "When," as the sage said, "the materials are in place, the magician will 
> appear."  In this view, the "magician" could very well be the universal 
> consciousness itself.
> 
> In any event, none of that could be supernatural (i.e., beyond the limits of 
> manifest space-time, including all of metric space as well as hyperspace) 
> since it all occurs within the boundaries of the universal fields between the 
> zero-point and infinite dimensionality.
> 
> As for our disagreement over the assumption of the zero-point as an existing 
> reality, we must remember that since that point is dimensionless (no matter 
> on what involutional field it exists on or in) -- it is both absolute and 
> relative ... Since, a zero point or singularity can exist on any level of 
> infinitely fractally involved fields where their lines of force cross over and 
> through each other at their tangent poles.  The fact that scientific mathematics 
> cannot handle such singularities on the physical plane is no reason to deny 
> their existence in fundamental reality on all the hyperspace and metric space 
> fields.  This should make it clear that each zero-point on the different 
> involutional levels have their own dimension particular to the fractally involved 
> coenergetic field plane they are on.  Thus, the zero-point singularity out 
> of which this universe radiated and evolved is only Absolute relative to the 
> zero-points in each lower order level.
> 
> In my ABC theory, those points or "singularities," by being both infinitely 
> divisible and infinitely expandable, fulfill the logical assumption behind 
> Einstein's fundamental theories of both relativity and quantum determinism, in 
> that, the absolute must be relative, and the relative must be absolute.  How 
> can we deny the existence (albeit abstract in our metric) of a stationary 
> point of Absolute space at the exact center of a turning wheel?  Could we not 
> see the same point being at the center of spin of a singular quanta of light or 
> any other quantum particle?  Is not that same point also everywhere in and 
> on the strings of the quantum foam throughout the Planck space?  Doesn't that 
> ubiquity and propinquity of zero-points throughout all space (including the 
> geometric center of all quantum particle fields) also account for 
> entanglement, as well as, possibly, the tachyon phenomena and the Casimir effect?  
> 
> That of course is the major flaw in all quantum mechanical theories and the 
> reason why physical observation of different aspect of motion or energy on 
> the quantum level is indeterminate.  Apparently, due to such absolute 
> relativity and relative absoluteness, the zero-point singularities on the physical 
> plane interfere with the zero-point singularities of a different order of 
> spinergy on the next higher order astral or etheric plane. 
> 
> Leon
> 
> In a message dated 9/27/06 11:02:04 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Leon, 
>  
> I replaced my monitor with a flat screen model at a cost of only $150. Now 
> my system is better than ever.
>  
> However, I must disagree with you on the supernatural issue. My life seems 
> to be run by coincidences, much like the kind discussed in the book Celestial 
> Prophecy. My opinion is that there are intelligent beings in the supernatura
> l, as discussed in Theosophy, and that the higher forms of these beings have 
> some control over natural occurrences. Results obtained by prayer would seem 
> to verify this. That would be my explanation for the accelerated mutations as 
> well. But I admit that it is just an alternative to a supernatural that 
> contains the informational seeds of progressive evolution.
>  
> For example, in chaos theory, when complex organisms get to a high level of 
> complexity, they can spontaneously reorganize themselves into new 
> configurations. Kaufmann has demonstrated this on the computer and it is thought to be a 
> possible explanation for the Cambrian species explosions. The new 
> configurations would then be products of seeds available on the astral plane. But I do 
> not think such astral seeds have much influence on a new species once 
> created. Any accelerated development of existing species based on mutations would 
> more likely be due to the influence of supernatural intelligent beings. But of 
> course that is just gut feeling and speculation.   
>  
> Where you and I both disagree with ID is then on how new species are 
> created. The designs are available as a cosmic order of the universe, rather than by 
> detailed meddling by some conscious being. But I am still of the opinion 
> that conscious supernatural beings can guide evolution of an existing species 
> including speciation if environmental conditions are appropriate, like the 
> splitting of the same species into isolated  groups.
>  
> So it seems that you and I are of like mind on the overall scheme of 
> things, but differ on the detailed physics of how things happen. The biggest 
> disagreement is, as before, on your invention of a zero-point singular point. My 
> main objection to that is that singularities cannot happen in nature or in 
> physics. Physics is said to break down whenever a theory is singular. For example 
> in QED and QCD, such singularities are removed by renormalization.  
>  
> So it seems that we must continue to disagree on the fundamental hypothesis 
> of your ABC theory.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Richard
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeonMaurer@aol.com
> To: yanniru@netscape.net
> Sent: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 9:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Article: On Human Brain Size and the Genome
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Sorry about your monitor.  Hope you have replaced it so you can read this.  
> However, considering the nature of the technology today and the quantum, 
> relativity, and other yet to be determined fundamental laws of nature it's based 
> on, I wouldn't attribute the breakdown to any supernatural source. :-)
> 
> I agree that the accelerated change in the HAR1 gene is evidence that the 
> universe is intelligent and, as I see it, already has the ideal model of all 
> evolutionary forms stored as holographic image information in its higher order 
> astral fields containing the archetypal memory of its prior evolutional 
> cycle. 
> 
> So, from my POV (as well as from Sheldrake's, I assume) -- all this actually 
> does is indicate that evolution occurs by means of coenergetic or 
> "morphogenetic fields" that transfer those encoded images from that archetypal source 
> through the higher order fractally involved field levels to the physical field 
> level by some sort of analagous ED inductive/resonance process. 
> 
> However, it does not give any evidence that the forms of organic matter are 
> consciously created by an outside intelligent entity or "God"... As claimed 
> by the creationist promoters of so called, "intelligent design." 
> 
> Accordingly, I doubt that the universe -- while being the root of 
> consciousness and matter and the source of all kinds of conscious entities, intelligent 
> or not, on each level of its involution and evolution -- is a consciously 
> intelligent designer of anything that isn't already stored ideally in its 
> highest order archetypal memory field (zero-point "Spinergy" in the ABC model, or 
> "Akasha" in the theosophical model). 
> 
> Apparently, whatever intelligence the physical universe has in this present 
> state of its phenomenal existence could very well be the result of trial and 
> error evolutionary processes in earlier involutional phases during the 
> initial inflationary period.  Couldn't we say, then, that creation is an ongoing 
> process from the highest order fields to the lowest, with the evolutional 
> intelligence gathered in each fractal involutional stage being the "creator" of 
> the next lower order stage?
> 
> Like DNA's constructive encoding is located everywhere throughout the cells 
> of the human body, that spinergy and its archetypal memory is located 
> everywhere throughout the universe -- from its most subtle hyperspace to its most 
> gross metric space surrounding every absolute zero-point of consciousness.  
> Thus, since it's evident that the universe carries its intelligence wherever any 
> part of it is located -- doesn't that make each of us potentially 
> intelligent designers with the same powers of creation that the creationists attribute 
> to their imaginary God?
> 
> In a message dated 9/25/06 11:16:16 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
>  Leon,
>  
> My computer monitor broke as I was replying to Mind/Body with the suggestion 
> that this accelerated occurrence of mutations in a gene that is apparently 
> responsible for the enlarged brain of humans is perhaps the best evidence for 
> Intelligent Design, as well as an indication of how the supernatural can 
> affect evolution.
>  
> Apparently god (or whatever controls such things) did not want this idea to 
> be widely distributed. Hence I need to buy another monitor.
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]